February 2010

February 28, 2010

There is an episode of the West Wing (much missed by many of us political anoraks) which sees Josh running around the White House quoting a statistic along the lines of 30% of Americans thinking that the US Constitution is broken and 21% wanting a new Constitution. (If anyone can remember the actual statistics, please add them below - it does not change my point here but not remembering it correctly is annoying me!).

The point he makes, when no one seems to be as concerned as he is about these figures, is that it means there are 9% of people who think it is broken - but don't want to fix it!

Below the headline of the Tory lead being down to 2% in the YouGov poll in the Sunday Times today, is a pair of numbers I find as alarming as Josh found his poll stat but commentators are not really mentioning.

According to the poll, 31% think Cameron generally tells the truth. From a partisan point of view, like mine, that is a worrying number that we would want to see considerably higher. It is not that far below Brown's 35% rating, though, which is more of a comment on the general low-regard for politicians.

But the next question asked whether Cameron "has the character to be an effective Prime Minister", to which the answer is 40%. This is better news for Conservatives.

What it says about the respondents is not that reassuring, though. That means that at least 9% of the respondents think Cameron does NOT generally tell the truth but still has the right character to be an effective Prime Minister. In other words, to do the job well they they he should general lie.

Did the survey participants not think their responses through or is it indicative of the image of professional politicians that lying is now seen as a positive attribute? I hope it is the former.

As the Conservative poll lead shrinks ever smaller – to just 2 points in Sunday’s YouGov poll – the chances of a Conservative majority after the election are being cut it seems every day. “The Conservative Party has been eased to 4/7 from ½ (a 63 percent chance from 66 percent) to win a majority at the next General Election,” reads a Ladbrokes press release. “Not so long ago a majority for David Cameron appeared a formality. That’s certainly not the case now.” They can say that again.
It may be that in future analysis this 16-point narrowing is observed as a blip, an odd polling phenomena that couldn’t be accounted for and soon corrected itself, but there is an increasing risk that it isn’t. I do not mean to cause alarm, or appear defeatist, but I fear that if we do not take heed of this warning then we could be just weeks away from a fourth Labour term.
In so many ways I wish that we had never had the double-digit mega leads that have perhaps catastrophically engrained complacency, as good as they felt at the time. Even now we console ourselves in the belief that we are performing better in the marginals that matter most – perhaps we are, but are we performing better enough in enough marginals? – and that we can still win through effort – knocking on that extra door, calling that extra voter, delivering that extra leaflet – but there is a threat that this won’t be enough. With every vote now counting, the role of the internet could now prove decisive.
Now my views on internet campaigning – particularly Twitter – are well known and not universally shared here on ConservativeHome CentreRight or with the Party leadership, but this one last time I will make the case. The situation we now face I will call the situation of increasing returns (though I welcome better titles), in which the closer the election the greater impact the internet will have. I concede that online campaigning may only sway a few voters – though point out this is true of all types of campaigning – but the closer fought the election not only does each vote count more but the greater the number of votes swayed by the internet becomes. In a tightly fought election people think far more about their decision, absorb more information, discuss more with others and research their options in a far greater degree. Whilst these things were once greatly limited, the internet has opened new possibilities. Where once there was a chat by the water cooler there is Facebook and Twitter, where once there was a few leaflets there is now Google. If we go into this election with the polls putting both the Conservatives and Labour within a few points, it could well be the internet which decides who enters Downing Street.
A few years ago the Conservatives had a strong lead over Labour on the internet front, but the prospect of election defeat focussed socialist minds and today things are much more evenly matched. On Twitter - which I understand has 5 million UK users - Labour is ahead with several accounts such as Sarah Brown and Labour supporting Stephen Fry boasting 1-million plus followings. I have said before, but it is really time David and Sam Cameron joined. War does not yet seem to have been declared fully on YouTube, but if Labour supporters' billboard spoofing and the US Presidential Election are anything to go by then we can expect viral video (perhaps employing comedy) to be a feature. Viral advertising - spread by others and thus in part endorsed as a message by them - is without doubt the best form of advertising, and after the billboard spoofs turned up on the hotly contested Mumsnet I expect Labour will seek more such campaigns. (The Conservatives could perhaps establish a semi-independent team outside of CCHQ to focus on viral promotions?)
In conclusion I guess this is a final plea for the internet to play a greater role, a final plea that the good work of CCHQ's New Media team is allowed to expand, be built upon, and be made as central to campaigning as can be. We cannot be complacent - we have to use everything and leave nothing - and at the moment we aren't using everything. With a 2 point lead - to borrow a phrase - we can't go on like this, we need to Twitter the message and get viral.

ToryDiary has reported on the Party's six pledges. As the Editor says, though not perfect (what is?) they are good. However, there is one important weakness. None of the pledges calls to mind the failings of the government in contributing to the recession or identifies a way we would be different. In particular, I preferred the Editor's formula in the ten-point plan:

This election is a choice between decline and recovery. The choice at this election must be presented clearly: Brown doubled the national debt by wastefully spending too much taxpayers' money. His failed system of banking regulation meant we have had the longest recession of major economies. Immigration is still increasing. Voters can elect a strong Conservative government that will bring borrowing, immigration and regulation of banks under control or it can choose the chaos of a hung parliament and Britain could go the way of Greece with much higher interest rates.

February 25, 2010

I’ve been criticised before for speaking “too soon” or “speaking ill of the dead” after the death of someone whose life, or demise, catches public attention. But it seems to me that that’s the time when such things get discussed and that opinions are formed based on discussion of such news items just as they are by any other news item. And that is the case with the news that a woman who regularly got into
the pool at a zoo was killed
yesterday by a killer whale. Particularly, as that link from the Times shows, when there is discussion of putting down the animal down, we ought not to let "respect for the dead" cloud our judgment or hinder our ability to contemplate issues rationally.

My position can be stated simply. If it comes down to it, I'm on the whale's side.

I of course feel sympathy, on a personal level, for the family of this poor woman. But it seems to me that large wild animals kept in captivity pose a certain element of danger to the people who visit them, particularly to those who keep them and get into their enclosures, and that that is or should be obvious to anyone, and that this woman, a grown adult who knew her own mind and her own business, knowingly accepted that risk in pursuing the course she took.

This logic is particularly the case, you might think, with this creature.Isn’t the clue in the name? They’re not called cuddle whales, are they?

Six points with YouGov. Seven with ICM. Nine with Harris. Twelve with Angus Reid. Fourteen with Angus Reid in the top 150 marginals.

Confusing? Sure. But really, so what?

My heroine, Margaret Thatcher, famously said that when she left politics she was going to start a "rent-a-spine" business. It's time for every Conservative candidate and activist to ignore polls that are all over the place and get ready - finally - to take this fight to Labour. It would be nice if Brown had ever discovered his lost bottle down the back of the no. 10 sofa. But although sometimes it seems like nothing's happening, and politics is in a holding pattern - the fact is, Labour are out of ideas, out of money and most importantly out of time. Within just a few weeks Gordon will be forced into his car, kicking and screaming, and he'll have to drive down the Mall to the Palace. And we will be starting the most important election of our lives.

February 24, 2010

Please God that health care does not get worse than it was in Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. The Secretary of State has accepted the damning findings and recommendations of the independent report but still refuses to hold a full public enquiry. What is he scared off? A brief study of the bloated soviet-style bureaucracy that controls the NHS may provide an answer. In the NHS, there are dozens of interlinking commissariats which report to and on each other and they are run by an even larger number of commissars. The commissars all have portentous and similar sounding titles and move frequently between the various commissariats. Trying to ascertain who is responsible for what is challenging and often, just when you think you are there, the commissariats will be renamed and some poorly performing commissars, who should be sent off to the Gulag, are promoted out of harm’s way.

You may not have heard of the Care Quality Commission. It is an amalgamated quangopoly, which started work on All Fools’ Day 2009. It ate up the Health Care Commission, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Mental Health Act Commission. You should have heard of the Health Care Commission. They are the ones who published the initial report on Stafford. The public did not and still does not understand how so many unexpected deaths went unnoticed and unreported for so long. To improve our understanding, we need still more information about commissariat structure.
Stafford hospital was under the governance of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority until February 2008. The West Midlands Strategic Health Authority (SHA) had all the mortality data for West Stafford at the same time as the Healthcare Commission but, unlike the Healthcare Commission, West Midlands SHA did not understand the significance of the data. They thought the unexpectedly high death rate was merely a statistical aberration caused by faulty computer coding. So they ignored it. As was said in the House of Commons, the SHA “had the wool pulled over its eyes.”
The Care Quality Commission (CGC) is charged with monitoring and maintaining standards of care in the NHS. Commissar Cynthia Bower was the first Chief Executive at £200,000 a year. But just a minute. Previously, she was the Chief Executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and so must surely take some responsibility for the Mid Staffordshire debacle. Or is that unfair? Perhaps one should not hold Cynthia Bower responsible. It takes several years for hospital services to become as bad as they were in Staffordshire. Cynthia Bower only took over that position in 2005. Some of the blame must surely fall on her predecessor, who was Comrade David Nicholson. He has moved on from West Midlands Strategic Health Authority too. He is now Sir David Nicholson, and is Chief Executive of the National Health Service.

The travesty at the centre of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust disgrace that led to hundreds of avoidable deaths and exacerbated sickness and disease amongst others is the culture of fear that reigns in many NHS organisations. It is appalling that staff at all levels feel they have to chose between integrity and income. We have heard stories where nurses are reminded every week not to reveal poor practice; where doctors are bribed with bonuses and where management edit the minutes of meetings to ensure the public record doesn't look bad.

The current whistle-blowing provisions are clearly not working and must be urgently revisited. Staffordshire needs a public inquiry for justice to be done and for families of the deceased and maimed to know that their pain has been heard and that improvements will be embedded across the NHS.

In a profoundly challenging fiscal environment it will be essential to ensure safety for patients through safeguards for staff whose concerns are dismissed by their seniors. We cannot hope to achieve transparency or the opportunities to learn from poor practice if fear is allowed to remain. It needs to be replaced with a culture of honesty and humility - for a bereaved family to know that a mistake has been addressed and won't be repeated makes a significant difference to coming to terms with their loss.

The debate
on what to do about the UK deficit in 2010/11 has two main schools.First, there are those that argue that the
deficit should be cut early – through a combination of whatever spending cuts
can be delivered and some tax rises.This school argues that the danger of not acting early, in the immediate
aftermath of election victory, is that bond markets may start to fear that
policymakers will not take the tough decisions at all if they cannot take them
when their political strength is greatest.The consequence would be a fall in bond prices and hence a rise in gilt
yields – that is to say, a rise in interest rates – which would mean mortgage
costs going up just when the recovery was most tender.The economic consequences would be
disastrous.

The other
school argues that recovery is too fragile at this stage for the stimulating
effects of deficits to be withdrawn any more than is already scheduled.According to this view, more aggressive
action risks plunging the economy back into deep recession, and thereby
actually making the deficit worse (as tax revenues fall) rather than better.

Now, we at
Policy Exchange have broadly advocated the first view.In our view, deficits on the current enormous
and unprecedented scale (12.5% of GDP) go well beyond any plausible stimulatory
effect level and well into the zone in which excessive deficits damage recovery
rather than promoting it.

But the
deficit is not the main problem, or the most urgent.The main problem is the excessive level of
government spending, up from about 41% of GDP in 2007/8 to close to 50% in
2010/11.Government spending should be
cut by as much as possible, as early as possible.And what has not really been discussed in the
UK debate is the option of combining early spending cuts with early tax cuts,
so as to keep the deficit constant.

I let my head fall back against the window and leave my eyes to gaze
at the clouds scudding past in the low grey sky. Not watching anything,
just aware of the London skyline drifting past, listening to a melancholy song by an obscure Scottish band, wrapped warm on a quiet early morning commuter train - this is one of my life's small pleasures. Inconsequential, I suppose.

Following the launch of the Planning Green Paper on Monday (which Caroline Spelman wrote about on ConHome yesterday) I bumped into a couple of national journalists – from either side of the political spectrum – who were raving about the progressive and radical ideas that had just been announced.

Both were excited by proposals which taken together represent one of the biggest shifts in power for decades, as David Cameron said, “Suddenly, you can see how a system that was controlled by a few can be run by the many.” It was clear that the two journalists had truly grasped the point.

Actually in housing and planning this is nothing new. For more than three years we have been developing policies that will reverse Labour’s failed system, empower communities and succeed in building the future the country needs.

Take our house-building policies. Over the last few months, putting power back into the hands of local people has been attacked by Labour, yet the reality is that this Government has been responsible for creating a generation of NIMBYs through its own use of arbitrary, top-down housing targets and headline-grabbing announcements. Rather than actually building more homes their approach has led to fear amongst communities who worry that they will have little or no control over the way in which their own neighbourhoods develop. This in turn has created a backlash which has actually made development harder, rather than easier.

So under our radical plans the national targets will be scrapped but in their place we will provide large financial incentives for communities to welcome and drive development – we will match fund the council tax on each new home for a period of six years. And because a larger population needs employment we will also encourage business to flourish locally with a new incentive scheme for business rates to be kept locally, again over a six year period.

February 23, 2010

When I was at school, we had sex education. We were taught about the woman's cycle, about conception, about how contraceptives worked, about a variety of sexual practices, about certain health risks associated with these practices and how they might be mitigated. I'm all in favour of kids of, say, 11, 12, 13 learning about the woman's cycle and conception and contraceptives, and, say, those of 14, 15, 16 learning about the sexual practices and the health risks.

But current proposals, which were all over the news this morning, seem to be about something else. For David Laws tells us that proposals to permit faith schools to teach sex education classes in their own way raise the issue of whether "in the 21st century, are we going to have a school system which is going to be tolerant of intolerance in the name of religious freedom?...Or should we say in the 21st century that it is right that all state-funded schools should be teaching tolerance and respect for diversity."

So on David Laws account, the purpose of sex education is not to provide the mechanical sort of knowledge that I was offered at school, but rather something ethical.

Throughout my career as a parliamentarian I have sought to highlight the treatment of Christians and other religious communities in countries around the world where they find themselves in a minority – especially in Arab and Muslim countries, and in the communist world. I hope that the next Conservative government will not shy away from speaking out in favour of religious freedom. We can hardly expect a Conservative government to openly favour Christians – indeed, some would say that even the liberal, politically-correct bishops of the Church of England are reluctant to do that nowadays – but I hope we shall not shrink from promoting religious freedom and denouncing abuses when and where they occur.

One country in which Christians suffer widespread discrimination and persecution is Egypt. Last weekend I had the great pleasure of addressing a gathering of Copts, as Egyptian Christians are known, in my London constituency. The stories they told me about the perilous position of Christians in Egyptian society confirmed to me what I already knew from many briefings, letters and appeals that have been addressed to me by UK-based Copts over the years.

Egyptian Christian emigrés in the United Kingdom are extremely prosperous and well integrated in our society. Their success here reflects their success over two thousand years in Egypt, where between 15 and 20 per cent of the population of 80 million are Christians. According to ancient tradition, Christianity was introduced by St Mark to the city of Alexandria, which makes the Christian community in Alexandria the oldest church in Africa. Copts were fundamental to the development of the monastic, ascetic and eremitic traditions in early Christianity.

After the Arab invasion of Egypt in the seventh century Copts rapidly became a minority, but they exerted influence and enjoyed prosperity out of all proportion to their numbers. It was perhaps because of this situation, which is often a characteristic of religious minority communities around the world, that they became increasingly marginalised, discriminated against and demoted to the status of second-class citizens. Under Gamal Abdel Nasser's socialist and pan-Arab regime they were targeted ruthlessly because of their control of around half the national wealth, giving rise to a continuous wave of emigration that continues to this day.

Despite constitutional guarantees regarding religious freedom, Copts habitually face discrimination and persecution, not least from the state bureaucracy. Christians who want to convert to Islam have no problems doing so but there are many bureaucratic obstacles put in the way of Muslims seeking to convert to Christianity, such as the refusal by the authorities to allow converts to change their ID cards. Furthermore, it is in practice virtually impossible for Copts to build new churches and even to repair or extend their existing churches, whereas no such difficulties exist for the building of new mosques. To digress somewhat briefly, I was told by my Coptic hosts that they had wanted to buy a disused Anglican church in the Home Counties, which according to CoE rules should first be offered for sale to a 'faith community', but that it had been snapped up almost immediately by Saudi money and will be turned into a mosque. Apparently Saudi charities will outbid any attempts to compete in the bidding for a building which they believe should become a mosque.

The crackdown that Copts faced under Nasser has been compounded by the regime of Hosni Mubarak, who has been in power now for almost thirty years. Having been squeezed economically in the 1950s and 1960s, Copts are now increasingly facing violence fomented by Islamist jihadi radicals, whose influence in Egypt (led by the Muslim Brotherhood) is growing all the time. Mubarak is publicly committed to stamping out this extremism, which has caused huge damage to Egypt's tourism industry, but he knows that he has to accommodate the radicals to a degree, and therefore allegedly turns a blind eye to their systematic persecution of Copts.

Over the years I have raised the plight of Copts many times within the European Parliament – usually in the form of urgency debates and resolutions – and with the other EU institutions through letters and parliamentary questions. I believe firmly that the European Commission should insist that Egypt respects its own constitutional obligations on religious freedom before any further deepening of the EU-Egypt trade/aid relationship takes place. Last month the European Parliament passed a resolution on the Nag Hammadi massacre of Christians, when seven Copts were murdered while celebrating the Orthodox Christmas Eve.

I've also lobbied the Commission on particular cases, one of which in particular has left a lasting impression on me. Andrew and Mario are teenage twin brothers who grew up as Christians. Their father converted to Islam and demanded that his sons be classified as Muslims too, even going so far as to request new birth certificates to this effect. The boys' mother supported their right to remain Christians and had to make do without alimony because she refused to be classed as a second wife according to sharia law. When these brave boys were made to sit exams to test their knowledge of Islam they simply wrote 'I am a Christian' on their exam papers. Their case rightly became a cause célèbre and I was pleased to have played a very small part in helping to publicise this distressing situation.

Of course, the persecution of Copts cannot be seen in isolation. It is part of a disturbing trend of persecution of religious minorities throughout Arab and Muslim countries. Among the many such cases I have raised within the European Parliament and with the other EU institutions are: Assyrians in Iraq, Baha’is in Iran, Maronites in Lebanon and Syria, Christians and animists in South Sudan, and Christians in many other countries including Pakistan, Eritrea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. I hope that the sterling work of the Conservative Party's Human Rights Commission, led by Tony Baldry MP, will continue its work to raise awareness within the party of these and other human rights abuses. I shall be meeting Tony soon to discuss how best to put the work of Conservative MEPs in this regard at the disposal of the CPHRC.

The papers and blogosphere have got themselves in a spin over the latest revelations from inside Brown’s bunker, and as usual many are getting over excited. This time it is the allegations in Andrew Rawnsley's new book that Gordon Brown bullied staff, and the claims that several resorted to calling the National Bullying Helpline, which have lead to headlines such as “The Prime Monster” in The Sun. With the Tory lead narrowing there is a hope that these character defining stories will fatally wound the Prime Minister, but however much wishful thinking I employ I am certain that they won’t.

There was a time when the phrase that ‘mud sticks’ bore truth. In some cases it still does, but only in the cases of the very worst, stickiest of ‘mud’ stories that connect to the raw emotions of the public (we’re talking moat cleaning and duck houses to be honest). In today’s 24/7 round-the-clock media age a more apt saying has taken prominence: today’s newspaper is tomorrow’s chip-paper. The act of using newspaper to wrap chips has long since been outlawed, today’s newspapers now become tomorrow’s recycled eco-toilet roll, but the fact remains that this story – like most stories – has a limited shelf life and for Gordon Brown it’s simply a case of sitting it out. Like the handwriting and spelling story last November, it will soon be over and forgotten.

What makes the situation even less beneficial to the Conservatives is that – amid a large section of the public – bullying, aggressive and in my opinion slightly unhinged behaviour is viewed as strength of leadership. To a certain degree some people have always viewed aggression in this way, it’s why so many dictators have gained support despite behaviour that is utterly bonkers. Unfortunately the left-leaning media – especially the BBC – has promoted this view of leadership through programmes such as the Marxist caricature of business we call The Apprentice. Aggressive, angry people such as Alan Sugar and his contestants are held up as models of leadership and success (for a contrast watch the US version). In today’s Britain, Brown’s Nokia-hurling, “clunking fist” bullying is seen by many as strength, conviction, and the leadership needed for success. Cool, calm and collected is tragically seen as quiet, shy and weak. It’s therefore imperative that the Conservatives focus on the real issues, and one issue in particular.

Gordon Brown may be a bully but the issue that matters is that during his time as Prime Minister and Chancellor he borrowed beyond belief, going from abusing his Golden Rule to abusing the national Gold Card with very few even noticing. We have spoke briefly about the deficit, but so many people do not even know what that is (we should substitute National Debt instead). It’s not his abuse of staff that should be our focus, but instead his abuse of our nation’s finances. The staff can stand up for themselves. Unless the public understand that Labour maxed out our credit cards to the point they’re about to get cut up at the supermarket till – and we must use such everyday language and comparisons – then a Conservative-victory could slip away.

In short we’ve got to stop attacking Bully Brown, our real enemy at this election is Gordon Gold-Card.

February 22, 2010

Last week a debate between economists spilled over into the
mainstream media. In the Sunday Times 20
economists signed a letter arguing that a credible medium-term fiscal
consolidation (spending cuts and tax rises) is necessary for a sustainable
recovery, that the current structural deficit should be eliminated over the
course of a parliament, and fiscal measures should begin to take place in
2010-11. Later
in the week an even bigger group of economists (67
this time) signed another letter arguing that these 20 economists were
wrong and we should back the plans in the 2009 Pre Budget Report.

We got an insight into what the public may make of this
public fall-out between economists when we spoke at a focus group on economic literacy
at Demos this
weekend. Demos invited 16 members of the public to hear economists argue on
spending cuts from both sides – and we were there to make the case for cutting
spending and cutting soon.

In making our case we emphasised that:

·The deficit is more than just a debate between
economists over numbers. The deficit has a real impact on everyone. Not
tackling the deficit will lead to rising interest rates, currency instability
and slower economic recovery. This will make it harder for individuals to
borrow (meaning more expensive mortgages) and harder for businesses to borrow
(meaning they cannot invest and hire more people).

·The government’s finances can be thought of in a
similar way to a family budget. The government gets income (from us all) in the
form of taxes and other revenues. The government spends money on public
services (e.g. NHS) and welfare (e.g. Child Trust Fund). When your income and
spending don’t match, you save or borrow – so does government.

·We have been living beyond our means for many
years. Over the last 50 years governments have persistently spent more than
they collected in taxes. Families have also been persistently spending more
than they earn (think credit cards, overdrafts, mortgages). The government is
now spending more on interest on its loans than on the transport and police
budgets put together.

·Some people argue spending cuts mean people stop
spending money, leading to businesses cutting back production, leading to people
stopping spending money, and on
and on. However, this argument largely ignores how the money is spent – and
the government tends to spend money more poorly than people would themselves –
and that the money that government spends is not free. Taxing, borrowing and
printing money all come at real costs – money does not grow on trees (and, if
it did, it would be largely worthless).

·Something needs to be done and we need to get on
with it. Just like making the minimum repayment on a credit card, putting off
repaying the debt will lead to the total amount we need to pay being higher. People
who lend us money need to know that there is a plan for paying it back – otherwise
interest rates will go up (which will mean mortgages will be more expensive).

·When the money runs out, households prioritise
their spending. The government needs to do this too and to focus spending on
the right things, such as a more educated and efficient workforce and infrastructure
(e.g. roads and utilities). Government plans are, however, to protect spending
in the wrong areas (such as public service jobs) while infrastructure spending
will be cut hardest. This is the wrong approach.

·Some government spending is clearly being wasted
or failing to provide a return that covers its costs of funds. In this case,
why wouldn’t we cut this waste as soon as possible? Otherwise we would be
simply throwing good money after bad.

·Finally, although cutting spending in some areas
will take time (e.g. given the need to consult with unions and staff) there is
no excuse for not presenting a clear plan for reducing the deficit now.

So how did this all go down? When we asked the audience
which politician has gone on record as saying we face some of the deepest cuts
in spending in 20
years, the most common answer was David Cameron. No members of the audience
identified a Labour politician (it was Alistair Darling) and that the Labour
Party is planning major cuts. As Stephanie
Flanders argued, in reality the difference in proposed spending cuts
between the Conservative and Labour parties is slight (£15 billion by 2015-16,
or 1% of GDP), but the perception of differences is much larger. All political
parties are planning cuts soon after this year’s general election. The debate we
should be having is how
and where these cuts should take place.

Today the Home Office trumpet their "great success" in the battle against smugglers, forgers and traffickers. Yet the numbers do not support the case being made by the Government. Labour has seen no notable success on border security during these last 13 unlucky years and Labour's record on human trafficking is poor.

In Parliament last Summer, a Minister stated that in the last five years, 568 arrests of human traffickers had been made, but resulted in just 114 convictions. A conviction rate of 20% is low - especially when you consider there is generally a victim involved who could give evidence

In Dover we have some idea of why this is. An example of a total mess in tackling human trafficking is this case reported in the Dover press and I'm told it's not unusual. There seems to be a lack of effective joined up Government and the Crown Prosecution Service seems not to be as effective as it could be. Our Border Officers also tell me their ability to act is limited by Labour's "Human Rights" legislation. Human Traffickers have rights too, apparently. The Home Office also lectures Border Officers on how they must treat their "customers" ever so nicely under the Border Agency's "Proud to Serve and Protect" programme.

Border Officers are particularly annoyed by the "target culture". They tell me that one month they did really well on heroin, but failed to find enough bushmeat. Were they congratulated for their success in keeping hard drugs off our streets? No - they were castigated for not getting enough bushmeat. It didn't matter that the smugglers fail to smuggle in line with Labour's targets. The Border Officers were expected to hit the targets no matter what.

We need to be doing better on the evil of human trafficking. And assist our Border Officers in keeping our nation secure, giving them the tools and support they need to do a very difficult job. This is why a Border Police Force would make such a positive difference to our borders and the security of our nation.

Reform of the NHS is a difficult nettle to grasp as a general election approaches. The public may easily but inaccurately assume that much needed reform is a threat to the NHS principle of a decent standard of medical care being available to all, independent of means and status. They easily forget that such medical care has not been available to all for a decade or more. For those of us who work within the NHS, and experience the catalogue of waste that surrounds us, it is deeply depressing to see that there is a bi-partisan policy that can best be summed up as “leave the NHS alone”. Last April I described how easily the next general can be lost by the Conservatives.

The country may be tired of Gordon Brown, but the battle is not yet over. The election is not a foregone conclusion. The situation now more resembles 1992 than 1997. It is not enough to want to dismiss Gordon Brown. There must be an attractive alternative and, just as in 1992, certainly as far as health care policy is concerned, there is as yet no such alternative. I have long since stopped being doctrinaire about the NHS. We need to take the best of the private sector systems and the best of the public sector systems. We do neither. Look at the growth of Stalinist bureaucracy or the outrage of PFI and external IT contracts. Take your pick. The NHS currently encapsulates the worst of both public and private systems. We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Every day, vast sums of money are wasted on healthcare and still both parties are pledging not to cut expenditure on the NHS. Crazy. We looked before at the egregious waste of money on the NHS Centre for Involvement. Thankfully (watch the video) it has now been closed, but how many millions did it cost the taxpayer?
Over the next few weeks, I want to look at a few more of the many areas of waste about which the general public are unware. Let us start with the Director of Patient Experience…

Politics is important. The size, cost and power of the State mean that no-one can afford to ignore or take lightly the question of who runs the country. However, politicians must also do their best to limit the collateral damage that occurs when they battle for supremacy.

There is a danger that the titanic battle of a General Election could come to resemble a fight between King Kong and Godzilla - that both sides become so engrossed in defeating each other that they fail to notice that they are laying waste to the city around them.

I fear that the latest furore around allegations of bullying in No 10 is just such a disaster. Something really important has been wrecked as a result of the political tussle.

Don't get me wrong - it is certainly important and deeply concerning if the Prime Minister has been bullying his staff. However, the decision of the National Bullying Helpline's Chief Executive to reveal that Downing Street staff have called the Helpline is a serious error that will do lasting harm to many people.

It is a fundamental principle of these helplines - from the Samaritans to University Night Lines - that they are utterly confidential. Only if people know that no-one will ever stand any chance of finding out about their call will they feel able to phone in. That confidentiality even extends in many cases to the phone operators themselves concealing the truth about their work or volunteer activities - lest a friend or family member be put off phoning for support for fear that they will be put through to someone they know.

The actions of the NBH's Christine Pratt have shattered this confidentiality with regard to her own organisation. She did not name the people involved, but she did just about everything else. Even if the callers can't be personally identified from her comments, it is safe to say that the boss-worker relationship is probably even more unpleasant in No 10 this morning than it was when the calls were originally made.

Worse, if anyone out there - in Downing Street or any other workplace - is feeling bullied themselves, they will now think twice before picking up the phone. The concern will now be live in people's minds that if one helpline can behave in this way, then others can do.

It may have made some good headlines, but Ms Pratt's intervention has shattered something crucial to large numbers of vulnerable people. I can't help but feel she has burned something incredibly valuable just to warm up politics for a day.

General Elections are rightly fought on the government's record of achievement. There are many things that in theory should be above politics - I won't start a list as it will distract from the main point - which is that elderly social care must be one of the failures on which Labour should be held to account.

Labour came to power in 1997 with Frank Dobson, the then SoS for Health saying that the situation couldn't carry it on as it was. Lord Sutherland was tasked with heading a commission to come up with an new plan. He did in 1999, but he was being briefed against even before it was published and it was duly shelved in England (whereas the Scots implemented the recommendation to provide free care at home) and no alternatives were pursued. The subject has of course been reviewed regularly, notably by Wanless, who was also ignored. No remodelling has meant elderly people had their care withdrawn because they no longer satisfied 'critical' or 'substantial' criteria and others have had to sell their homes.

As has often been said, how a nation treats their elderly is measure of its civilisation. Any elderly person will tell you that growing old is a massive adjustment, all the more so now as our expectations of comfort and relief, and our knowledge of what care is possible are that much higher. However the anxieties that many elderly people are experiencing are unacceptable. I have had elderly patients weeping uncontrollable tears as they have told of care services being withdrawn - not being able to have a bath or to sit down with a cup of tea (because you are too wobbly to carry it) doesn't sound like much until you imagine never being able to do these things again.

The Tories have a suggested an optional insurance of £8k, which I imagine it should be possible to add to a mortgage, and would ensure homes don't have to be sold to pay for care. But for non-home owners the funding will still have to be found and I believe it is right that we make this a funding priority. The Lib Dems plans are still vague and giving carers time off is already enabled by many existing charities. As I argue in the 2020health manifesto coming out next week, there are many ways we should be tackling the unreasonable demands made on the NHS which would translate into savings. Whether by appealing to people's altruism today or their self-interest for tomorrow, the case for improved funding for elderly care must be made.

British police are maintaining close surveillance of white supremacists espousing a violent ideology of race hate after the recent arrests of “white bombers”. That is the finding of an important new report – Britain’s Far Right Militants – published by Nothing British and the Centre for Social Cohesion, and covered in yesterday's News of the World.

The news is a scary reminder that there remain in dark corners of British society groups like Blood & Honour and Combat 18 that are militantly opposed to the principles of tolerance and fairness that we now take for granted.

No one argues that we are on the brink of an armed uprising. And the police are rightly adamant that the threat from better-organised, externally-financed, hi-tech Islamist terrorist is a far greater priority. But they are fully aware that circumstances might arise that make racial unrest a serious threat to the social fabric, for instance during a period of financial or social instability of the kind seen in the 1970s. These groups, hardly a threat to public order in today’s world, could become at a moment of national crisis the catalyst for the sort of clashes that saw inner cities burning in Britain’s race riots thirty-five years ago. Responding to this threat forms a part of the Police’s scenario planning.

Behind the writing of the report is a distasteful journey into the world of race hate, taken by the authors Edmund Standing and Alexander Meleagrou Hitchens. What they found in the lyrics of cult punk bands, the field manuals of secret societies and the ideology espoused on far-Right bulletin boards was disturbing enough for Dame Pauline Neville-Jones to call for these groups to be legally proscribed.

On the morrow of her 1987 election triumph, Margaret Thatcher pledged that the Conservatives would devote themselves to transforming Britain’s inner cities. The urgent regeneration task for an incoming Conservative administration this year will involve transforming our increasingly shabby suburbs at a time of dire constraints on the public finances.

The regeneration of the centres of cities like Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool and Manchester – to name but a few – has been one of the triumphs of the past twenty-five years. These areas have become attractive places to work and live. Even in my own central London seat I never cease to be amazed at the number of people in their fifties and sixties who choose to downsize from the Home Counties and move into a city centre apartment where they can benefit from an excellent retail, health, transport and entertainment offering. Alongside a more diverse and mobile younger population, they help provide a social glue that ensures many inner city areas now thrive.

February 20, 2010

Sir Nicholas Winterton has been widely criticized for his contention that MPs should be able to claim for first-class travel. Almost every senior journalist I know travels first class when on business and travelling any significant distance. I travel first class on business and standard class when I travel with my family. Why? In first class, I get a seat, I have food and drinks brought to me (so I don't have to interrupt my work), there are usually not children running around or crying, and I am usually not jammed in to a level that is uncomfortable and interferes with my ability to work. Sir Nicholas is obviously correct to say that the sort of people in standard class (students with large ruck-sacks, friends chatting, people listening to music loudly on their headphones, parents battling to keep their children amused) are quite different sorts of people from those in first class (business people, those seeking quiet, those who prefer their own company).

After I was first elected in 2001, I was put on the Work and Pensions Select Committee. There I found a strikingly young, unflappably bright, upwardly mobile, superbly connected (in New Labour terms) unwaveringly smiling and very cool - in both senses of the word - Labour MP: James Purnell.

He was a first-rate Committee member - not just sharp but actually imaginative, a rare quality; always prepared to let the Government know it could do much better, seldom willing to put his vote where his mouth or pen were by siding with us - which was smart of him, in terms of his own career at least.

So we came in at the same time, and travelled together for a while. But he was really going places (like the Cabinet, for example), and our paths swiftly diverged. Now we're both going at the same time.

Enough has been written about Purnell already to leave me with only one point worth making. It's additional to Matthew Parris's column this morning which argues, I suspect rightly, that Purnell has had enough not just of Brown's Labour in particular, but of the Commons in general - of the sense that politicians now operate in a culture which presumes guilt before innocence.

Tough, I hear you say. And tough especially in the post-expenses afterwash. If politicians can't take the heat, they should get out of the Parliamentary kitchen - and make way for others.

February 19, 2010

I haven't written about Heathrow for a while, I think this was my last post on the subject. My view is still that the Conservative policy of blocking expansion would be very bad news for British businesses and taxpayers, as Heathrow is Britain's hub airport and preventing it competing with other hubs in other countries will mean airlines fly to fewer destinations, and less frequently, from London. We'll all have to put up with less choice and longer, more expensive flights. That will make Britain a less attractive place to work and invest in and hurt the economy.

The political argument for blocking Heathrow expansion was that it was a way of gaining support from people in the West London marginals (ironically, I think that includes me). But I've always been a bit sceptical of that argument. After all, one of the things about flying is that you only need to build infrastructure, and cause disruption from noisy planes, at the start and end of the route. Even if you think the Conservative plan to substitute new high speed rail links for the airport is credible - and I don't think it is, it will cause disruption along the entire length of the route. There has to be a pretty serious risk that you create as many political battles with locals who dislike the new project as you avoid by blocking Heathrow expansion. That seems to be confirmed by the Guardian story this morning:

"One Tory party source acknowledged concerns that the route could go through key constituencies between the home counties and the West Midlands, triggering complaints about property blight from houseowners. "We don't want to lose 10 seats backing a route blindly," said the source."